Get it? The global warming FRONT?
There is so much good stuff out there now on GW it's hard to keep up. We've been told that all the scientists are on one side on this but from what I can see the advocates of global warming are entertainers, politicians, and actors, and the skeptics are scientists! The IPCC reports are written by policy wonks, not scientists. It is SO weird and disturbing.
Alexander Cockburn, a socialist leftie if ever there was one, writes for The NAtion. He has a column on GW
here.
The first two paragraphs are about "carbon credits", which allow the over-indulged to continue their high-living ways while lecturing the rest of us on our use of fossil fuel:
"In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed. "
He goes on to hammer on a point that has always bothered me. This is carbon dioxide we're talking about here. Carbon. Dioxide. A major component of our "ecosphere". A small simple molecule that is everywhere. A byproduct, not a catalyst. And the amount of CO2 given to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is very small compared to the amount of CO2 given off by the oceans. I"m not a scientist, but I really don't believe the CO2 molecule has the power they think it does.
And Glenn Beck had an excellent show on GW on CNN tonight. Real scientists with real credentials talking about their skepticism.
But the thing I find most objectionable about this whole thing is the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools. I can see why it won an Oscar. It's a great performance by a great actor. But scaring kids about their future on the basis of flimsy evidence is unconscionable, and they should be ashamed. It will come back to bite them when the kids grow up and realize that, like all the other Malthusian fears, it was just a big hoax.
Lots of people bring their dogs to the lake shore to fetch sticks out of the water. Here's one that did so over and over and over again:
You'd think Panda would have wanted to do the same thing, but no. He refused to follow any sticks into that water. He did, however, like drinking it, and he looked scenic doing so.
